NO Half mast: Emulating the Decider

[Guest guest]

Tories keep media away from coffins

Apr. 24, 2006.

CANADIAN PRESS

 

OTTAWA The Conservative government has taken steps to keep the public

from seeing images of flag-draped coffins when fallen soldiers are

returned home from Afghanistan.

 

For the first time since the Afghan mission began, the government will

shut down an Ontario airfield when the remains of four soldiers killed

over the weekend are returned Tuesday.

 

Government officials said the new directive is permanent.

 

It echoes a policy attempted by the Bush administration. Concerns that a

stream of images of coffins draped in the Stars and Stripes would

diminish public support for the Iraq war prompted the White House to

impose a publication ban.

 

With Canadian public opinion evenly divided on the Afghan mission, it

appears the federal government may have similar political concerns.

 

The move comes after Canada suffered its worst one-day combat loss since

the Korean war, when four soldiers were killed last weekend in a

roadside explosion.

 

Defence Minister Gordon OConnor insisted politics had nothing to do with

closing the Trenton air base for Tuesdays return ceremony.

 

I have made the most appropriate decision during this most emotional

time for the families, OConnor said.

 

The repatriation of our fallen soldiers back to Canada is a private and

solemn event between the families and the Canadian Forces.

 

Senior government officials said the decision to restrict access to CFB

Trenton was OConnors.

 

But other government sources said the edict came directly from Prime

Minister Stephen Harpers office, and that defence brass were ordered to

keep the media at bay.

 

A source at the Department of National Defence said that the request for

privacy did not come from the military, and flew in the face of

longstanding Canadian Forces practice.

 

Canadas death toll in Afghanistan has reached 17, and Conservative

government officials fear the mounting casualties could present a

political problem.

 

The government took a pounding from the opposition Monday for ending the

Liberals recent practice of lowering Parliament Hill flags when soldiers

are killed.

 

Liberals called the move callous. And they said the decision to restrict

viewing of soldiers caskets was unprecedented for a Canadian prime

minister.

 

He has lifted a page from the Bush book and borrowed the Bush modus

operandi, said Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh.

 

Dare I say president Harper is following in the footsteps of President Bush

 

(He wants the tragedy) out of sight, so that possibly it might remain

out of mind.

 

MP Robert Thibault, who supports the Afghan mission, said an increasing

body count is no reason to stop lowering the Peace Tower flag or shield

Canadians from the human cost of the conflict.

 

But Conservative MP Brian Pallister said the situation in Afghanistan

has changed, and so must the government response.

 

Canadian soldiers are closer to the action that at any time in recent

years, he said, and the impact of casualties returning home must be

taken into account.

 

That really is the challenge in this: how do you give credit and honour

those who made a sacrifice, on the one hand, without hyping the fear of

more casualties in the future in the minds of Canadians

 

On the weekend, retired major general Lewis MacKenzie predicted ``an

adjustment in the political reaction given the increasingly likelihood

of more frequent casualties.

 

You dont have to have the entire symbolic leadership of the forces and

the nation for the fatalities coming back, said MacKenzie, a one-time

federal Progressive Conservative candidate.

 

I dont know how you scale back the media, he added.

 

-----

 

Ottawa Sun:

 

-The Ontario legislature held a moment of silence

Monday to honour the four slain soldiers, something

the House of Commons did not do.

 

- With Canadian public opinion evenly divided on the

Afghan mission, it appears the federal government may

have similar political concerns.

 

This guy Harper wont lower the flag in respect.He wont

be at the airfield when the bodies come home.He wont

go to the funerals.

Yup,just like the moron to the South

 

 

 

Voices: Fallen soldier media ban

Apr. 25, 2006. 10:16 AM

 

=The government will not allow media to cover the

funeral or related ceremonies of four soldiers killed

in Afghanistan. Do you agree with this?=

 

We owe it as a nation to show our support and

condolences to the family of the soldiers and at the

same time, as Canadians, we have the right to know

what is going on especially when it deals with our

soldiers.

Nisha Siva, Scarborough

 

 

The fallen heroes did their duty for our country and

it is our duty to honour them. This Conservative

regime is disrespecting the soldiers and their

families in order to avoid political pressure.

Vic LeClair, Cambridge

 

The question is ?Why?? Why is Harper banning the

media? Is it to quiet a public who don't believe we

should be fighting in Afghanistan in the first place?

Melissa Hore, Toronto

 

I think that when it comes to issues of life and death

like our ongoing presence in Afghanistan, it is more

important than ever that the media resist such efforts

of censorship.

Glenn Freeman, Stuttgart

 

When the prime minister refuses to answer questions

from the press and starts dictating what can and

cannot be reported, one has to question his motives.

Craig Russell, Toronto

 

 

I abhor this decision by Mr. Harper. His efforts to

limit press coverage of the toll of this misadventure

and his efforts to thwart media scrutiny in our

Parliament do not bode well for transparency, or

Canadians.

Coren Abis, Terrace Bay

 

Our brave young dead soldiers are being sneaked into

their own country as if they had done something wrong.

These men deserve honour and respect, not Stephen

Harper's wish to keep it all under cover so he can

remain PM.

Jackie Stockley, Orillia

 

I agree with (Prime Minister Stephen Harper's)

decision to not lower the flag at Parliament. But

banning the media? Seems unnecessary, not to mention a

little George Bush-ish ...

Austin Dumas, Georgetown

 

The soldiers who died were not in Afghanistan as

private citizens ... Their stated goals are not

private in any way.

Their deaths, as tragic as they are, represent not

only the sacrifice of the individual men and women of

our armed forces, they in fact represent the loss and

sacrifice of an entire country.

It is our service, as much as it is the soldiers', or

their immediate families.

Lee Rickwood, Toronto

 

I definitely do not agree with Mr. Harper's stand. It

is a sad time indeed, yes, for the families of the

soldiers who died, but also for all of Canada and the

nation has the right as free people to honour the

soldiers in any way that they can.

Vel Neal, Toronto

 

Stephen Harper needs to be very careful in his

decisions to limit the voices of the Canadian media,

who speak for Canadians themselves.

Amy Brandon, Toronto

 

 

-- -- --

 

The Prime Minister who would be president

 

Does Harper really get it? Canadians didn't elect him,

the voters of his riding did.

He is the leader of his party and the Prime Minister,

but we don't want a president, writes Arthur Haberman

 

 

Apr. 19, 2006.

 

Much has been made about the new style of Stephen

Harper as Prime Minister. He is different from several

immediate predecessors in how he conducts himself and

how he relates to his cabinet and Parliament.

 

The clue to his behaviour may be that Harper really

wishes that he were president of Canada.

 

And not just any kind of president, for there are

states that have prime ministers and presidents where

the latter is a symbolic head of state, much like our

governor-general.

 

Harper takes the U.S. presidency as his model, where

the president is both head of government and head of

state, and has a power and deference unknown and

inappropriate to parliamentary governments.

 

The presidential style began immediately after the

election in January, when Parliament was not in

session.

 

First, Harper limited his access to the media, keeping

something of a distance, controlling what would be

known and said.

 

As part of this desire to keep a regal distance, he

informed his cabinet that no one could give interviews

or release information without clearing it with his

office.

 

When the minister of external affairs made an error,

he went back to the press the next day to " clarify, "

meaning to retract, his earlier statement.

 

Harper was the hub and the rest of the cabinet and his

minority party were the spokes — all roads to people

and information lead through the PM's office.

 

The difference with ordinary parliamentary cabinets is

that, say, under Brian Mulroney or Jean Chrétien, the

prime minister was first among equals. Now they, and

we, were quickly informed, the PM is first, and the

rest of the cabinet is possibly second.

 

Then he went to Afghanistan. Thank heavens we didn't

have a " mission accomplished " moment.

 

But that was because before you have that, the

choreography of supposedly strong leadership demands a

" we-will-not-cut-and-run " statement to show that you

are determined and tough.

 

It doesn't really matter what you are determined and

tough about in the U.S. style of the presidency, you

just have to do this to show you are not a wimp, most

especially if you are perceived to be something of a

policy geek and someone who has never served in the

armed forces (or avoided serving through the reserves

or because, in the immortal words of Dick Cheney, it

just wasn't one of his priorities).

 

Just to make certain we know who is in charge, the

minister of defence, who also travelled to

Afghanistan, never got to speak a word.

 

The other important thing for U.S. politicians is to

invoke the deity and always assume that God is on

one's side.

 

So Harper ended many of his early public speeches with

a " God bless Canada " invocation.

 

When, say, presidents George Bush (I and II) and Bill

Clinton invoke God, they are without question

referring to the Christian deity, in a society which

expects that immigrants assimilate into the

mainstream. Does Harper not get it about Canada?

 

When he invokes his god on behalf of all Canadians, he

is excluding a lot of us in a multicultural society

where we can choose our own traditional faith as well

as becoming Canadian.

 

We are content in a post-modern world of citizens with

multiple identities.

 

Many of those to the south are not, but, of course,

being presidential means that God is part of your

office staff.

 

Then we had the recent Speech from the Throne,

delivered by the governor-general.

 

Harper, however, decided that instead of a speech to

Parliament reported in the media, it would be a media

event meant to display the rightness of his positions,

something like the annual State of the Union address

in the United States since the time of president

Ronald Reagan.

 

So the military was present, including one soldier who

had recovered from wounds of war and gave interviews,

to be part of the theatre of state, much like George

W. Bush often using the military as his audience.

Remember, the president is also the commander-in-chief

of its armed forces, much as Harper seems to want to

be. Did he not permit and encourage pictures of him

flying a military aircraft on his way to Afghanistan?

 

Is there a problem with all this centralization of

power, which is continuing, and the determination to

be perceived as a distant leader?

 

There are several. First, there is the reality of

having a governor-general, something I am certain

troubles Harper.

 

We have a head of state, and it is the crown,

represented in Canada by the governor-general. It is

she to whom we defer and give the respect we wish to

pay to our country.

 

It has been reported that one of Harper's aides asked

a bunch of civil servants to stand when Harper entered

the room. They didn't, though I am certain they would

stand for the governor-general.

 

Then there is the difficulty that, while we have what

political scientists call a mixed government, we do

not have the separation of powers of the U.S.

constitution.

 

Bush is the executive, he is not a legislator. He

picks his cabinet and they are responsible only to

him. Harper is also the executive, but he gets that

position by being the leader of the party with the

most seats in the House of Commons, our legislative

body. He picks his cabinet and they are responsible to

both him and to Parliament.

 

So the PM is another parliamentarian, responsible to

the Senate and the Commons. Winston Churchill

understood this when he said his proudest position was

as a member of the British House of Commons.

 

I wonder whether Harper gets it. We didn't elect him,

the voters of his riding did. He is the leader of his

party and the Prime Minister, but we don't want or

need a president.

 

The greatest danger to our constitutional development

is if the style that Harper has displayed in the past

several months actually becomes accepted practice for

him and future prime ministers.

 

Then we will lose something of our political identity,

as both the cabinet and Parliament get much weaker and

much less important than anyone should want them to

be.

 

Arthur Haberman is University professor emeritus of

history and humanities at York University

 

 

Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited.